This is a list of active United States Navy aircraft squadrons. Deactivated or disestablished squadrons are listed in the List of inactive United States Navy aircraft squadrons.

Navy aircraft squadrons are composed of several aircraft (from as few as about four to as many as about a dozen), the officers who fly them, the officers and sailors who maintain them and administrative support officers and sailors. Some of the units listed in this article are not designated as "squadrons", but they all operate U.S. Navy aircraft in some capacity.

Squadrons and their history are listed in the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons (DANAS).

Squadron organization

Active duty squadrons are commanded by a commanding officer (CO) who holds the rank of commander. Second in command is the executive officer (XO), who also holds the rank of commander. The XO typically assumes command of the squadron after approximately 15 months. There are typically four functional departments – Operations, Maintenance, Safety/NATOPS, and Administration – each led by a lieutenant commander functioning as the department head. Within the departments are divisions (each typically headed by a lieutenant) and branches (headed by a lieutenant, junior grade or a chief petty officer).

The CO of a Reserve squadron is also a commander, as is the XO who will also assume command after approximately 15 months.  However, reserve squadron demographics are typically older and more senior in rank than their active duty squadron counterparts.  Department heads in reserve squadrons are typically senior lieutenant commanders, although some may be recently promoted commanders.  Where this difference in maturity level becomes more apparent is at the division officer level.  Since most officers in reserve squadrons previously served on active duty in the Regular Navy in a flying status for eight to ten or more years, they are typically already lieutenant commanders, or achieve that rank shortly after transferring to the Navy Reserve.  As a result, lieutenants are a minority and lieutenants, junior grade, are practically non-existent in reserve squadrons.  As a result, divisions are typically headed by lieutenant commanders and branches by lieutenants, senior chief petty officers or chief petty officers.

Types of squadrons
Squadrons can be categorized in a number of ways: Active versus Navy Reserve, land-based versus sea-based, fixed wing versus rotary wing (helicopter) versus Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and by mission. Unlike the USAF, US Army, and USMC, the US Navy does not refer to organizations such as maintenance (though US Navy aircraft squadrons do include their own organic maintenance departments), medical, administrative or other units as "squadrons". In the US Navy a squadron is a unit of aircraft, ships, submarines or boats. There are two exceptions: Tactical Air Control Squadrons (TACRON) consists of personnel specialized in the control of aircraft in support of amphibious operations; and the operating units of Naval Special Warfare Development Group colloquially known as "SEAL Team SIX", are called "squadrons" named by color (these squadrons are the organizational equivalent of a "regular" SEAL Team). This article concerns US Navy aircraft squadrons.

Active squadrons are those in the regular US Navy. Reserve squadrons are in the US Navy Reserve and are manned by a combination of full-time and part-time reservists. For the most part, there is no way to know by the squadron's name alone whether it is an active or reserve squadron. There are Reserve elements of many Active squadrons, and active duty personnel serving in many Reserve squadrons. In general, reserve squadrons share the same missions as their active counterparts, although there are Reserve missions (e.g., Adversary and Fleet Logistics Support) that have no Active counterpart.

At any one time, the US Navy has approximately 600 aircraft that are associated with particular ships. There are also several thousand additional Navy aircraft that are capable of shipboard operations, but are not associated with a ship. The Navy also has several hundred land-based aircraft that are not capable of shipboard operations.

Squadron designations
Navy aircraft squadrons can be properly referred to by designation or nickname. A squadron's designation describes its mission and therefore generally the  type of aircraft it flies.
 The Formal form designation (e.g., Strike Fighter Squadron EIGHT SIX) indicates the mission.
 A subset of the formal form designation is a Navy acronym format in capital letters, e.g., STKFITRON EIGHT SIX
 The abbreviated designation (e.g., VFA-86) also indicates the type and mission, as each of the letters has a meaning. In this case, "V" stands for fixed wing, "F" stands for fighter, and "A" stands for attack.
 Nickname – e.g., "Sidewinders".

Note: The presence of an "M" after the "V" (or "H" in the case of a helicopter squadron) denotes a USMC squadron: i.e. VMFA, VMR, HMLA.

A single squadron can carry a number of designations through its existence.  Chief Of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 5030.4G governs the squadron designation system.  A squadron comes into existence when it is "established". Upon establishment it receives a designation, for example Patrol Squadron ONE or "VP-1". During the life of the squadron it may be "redesignated" one or more times, the Navy's oldest currently active squadron is VFA-14 and it has been redesignated 15 times since it was established in 1919. Over the history of U. S. Naval Aviation there have been many designations which have been used multiple times (re-used) resulting in multiple unrelated squadrons bearing the same designation at different times. A full description of the history and use of aircraft squadron designations along with the rules governing the lineages of U. S. Navy aircraft squadrons can be found at List of Inactive United States Navy aircraft squadrons.

Fixed Wing Squadrons
Navy fixed wing squadron designations start with the letter "V" because in 1920 with issuance of General Order 541, two overall types of aircraft were identified and assigned permanent letters; lighter than air types were identified by the letter Z and heavier than air types by the letter V. The use of letter abbreviations for squadrons was promulgated in the "Naval Aeronautic Organization for Fiscal Year 1923" which is the first known record associating the abbreviated Aircraft Class Designations (V-heavier than air, Z-lighter than air, and letters designating role) with abbreviated squadron designations. In 1948 the Navy established its first two operational helicopter squadrons designating them as Helicopter Utility Squadrons. It departed from the established "V" heavier than air and "Z" lighter than air system and instead gave them the designation "HU" (H-Helicopter, U-Utility).  From that point on heavier than air squadrons which flew rotary wing aircraft were designated with the first letter of "H" while heavier than air squadrons flying fixed wing aircraft retained the original heavier than air "V" then associating the "V" only with fixed wing squadrons. There were two exceptions during the history of Naval Aviation that violated the rule, they were; the use of "RVAH" to denote Reconnaissance Attack Squadrons which operated the RA-5C Vigilante during the 1960s and 1970s and the use of "RVAW" from 1967 to 1983 to designate the Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Fleet Replacement Squadrons.

Electronic Attack (VAQ)

The VAQ designation was established in 1968 to designate "Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron". On 30 March 1998 the name of the designation was changed to "Electronic Attack Squadron" and all VAQ squadrons then in existence were renamed from "Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron-" to "Electronic Attack Squadron-".

Electronic Attack Squadrons consists of seven Boeing EA-18G Growlers with the exception of the Fleet Replacement Squadron which has more. The primary mission of the Growler is Electronic Attack (EA), also known as Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) in support of strike aircraft and ground troops by interrupting enemy electronic activity and obtaining tactical electronic intelligence within the combat area. Navy Electronic Attack squadrons carry the letters VAQ (V-fixed wing, A-attack, Q-electronic).

Most VAQ squadrons are carrier based, however a number are "expeditionary", deploying to overseas land bases. When not deployed (either on land or carrier), they are home-ported at NAS Whidbey Island, WA. The exception is VAQ-141, which is forward deployed to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan.

Note: The parenthetical (Second use) and (2nd) appended to some designations in the table below are not a part of the squadron designation system.  They are added to indicate that the designation was used more than once during the history of U.S. Naval Aviation to designate a squadron and that these were the second use of that designation.

Airborne Command & Control (VAW)

The VAW designation was first created in July 1948 with the establishment of VAW-1 and VAW-2 to designate "Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron". It was in use for only one month as in August 1948 VAW-1 and VAW-2 were redesignated "Composite Squadron" VC-11 and VC-12. In 1948 the VAW designation was resurrected when VC-11 and VC-12 were redesignated VAW-11 and VAW-12. In 1967, VAW-11 and VAW-12 which were large land based squadrons that provided detachments of Airborne Early Warning aircraft to deploying Carrier Air Wings were redesignated as wings and each of their detachments were established as separate squadrons. Established from VAW-11 were RVAW-110 (a FRS), VAW-111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 and established from VAW-12 were RVAW-120 (a FRS), VAW-121, 122, 123. In 2019, the VAW designation was renamed from Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron to Airborne Command and Control squadron and all VAW squadrons were renamed "Airborne Command & Control Squadron XXX" while retaining the VAW designation.

Each Carrier Airborne Command and Control squadron consists of four E-2C or five E-2D Hawkeyes except for the Fleet Replacement Squadron which has more. Transition to the E-2D Hawkeye is in progress and should be complete by 2025. The Hawkeye's primary mission is to provide all-weather airborne early warning, airborne battle management and command and control (C2) functions for the carrier strike group and Joint Force Commander. Additional missions include surface surveillance coordination, air interdiction, offensive and defensive counter air control, close air support coordination, time critical strike coordination, search and rescue airborne coordination and communications relay. The E-2 Hawkeye and C-2 Greyhound are built on the same airframe and have many similar characteristics. For this reason, both aircraft are trained for in the same Fleet Replacement Squadron.

When not deployed, they are home-ported at either Naval Station Norfolk, VA or Naval Air Station Point Mugu, CA. The exception is VAW-125, which is forward deployed to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan.

Strike Fighter (VFA)

The VFA designation was created in 1980 to designate "Fighter Attack Squadron". The designation was assigned to squadrons equipped with the new F/A-18A Hornet fighter attack aircraft. In 1983 the designation was changed to "Strike Fighter Squadron" and all VFA squadrons in existence at the time were renamed from "Fighter Attack Squadron-___" to "Strike Fighter Squadron-___". The Marine Corps did not participate in this renaming and VMFA squadrons retain the title "Fighter Attack Squadron". A Strike Fighter Squadron consists of either ten or twelve F/A-18E single seat Super Hornets, twelve F/A-18F two seat Super Hornets or ten F-35C Lightning IIs. Training squadrons (known as Fleet Replacement Squadrons) have many more aircraft. The Hornet and Super Hornet are all-weather aircraft used for attack and fighter missions. In fighter mode, they are used as a fighter escort and for fleet air defense; in attack mode, they are used for force projection, interdiction and close and deep air support. The Hornet and Super Hornet are also used for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) and the Super Hornet for aerial refueling.

The F-35C is a fifth-generation strike fighter that was originally planned to replace the F/A-18C Hornet, but expiring F/A-18C service life and delays in F-35C procurement forced the Navy to increase its buy of F/A-18E and F Super Hornets to replace F/A-18C Hornets while awaiting the arrival of the F-35C. The last active component F/A-18C Hornet squadron began its transition to the Super Hornet in February 2019, leaving only a single reserve component F/A-18C Hornet squadron which in 2022 was redesignated a Fighter Composite Squadron and replaced its F/A-18C Hornets with F-5N and F "adversary" aircraft.  The first deployable squadron to transition to the F-35C was a Super Hornet squadron. Ultimately each Carrier Air Wing will be equipped with two Super Hornet squadrons and two F-35C squadrons.

VFA squadrons are home-ported at NAS Lemoore, CA or NAS Oceana, VA when not deployed, except for the squadrons of CVW-5 (which are forward deployed to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan).

Note: The parenthetical (1st), (2nd), (3rd) etc... appended to some designations in the lineage column of table below are not a part of the squadron designation system.  They are added to indicate that the designation was used more than once during the history of U.S. Naval Aviation and which use of the designation is indicated. Absence indicates that the designation was used only once.

Fighter Squadron Composite (VFC)

The VFC designation was created in 1988 when two Fleet Composite (VC) squadrons (VC-12 & 13) which were dedicated adversary squadrons were redesignated to differentiate them from the remaining VC squadrons which fulfilled various miscellaneous or utility roles. In 2006 a third VFC squadron (VFC-111) was established from what had become a permanent detachment of VFC-13 and in 2022 a fourth VFC squadron was created when the last remaining USNR VFA squadron (VFA-204) was redesignated to VFC.  VFC squadrons provide adversary simulation for fleet squadrons. All VFC squadrons are Navy Reserve squadrons.

Two of the squadrons are based at NAS Fallon and NAS Key West to support fleet VFA squadron training at the extensive range complexes supported by those air stations. A third is based at NAS Oceana to support Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic squadron training and the fourth is based at NAS JRB New Orleans.

Note: The parenthetical (2nd) and (3rd) appended to some designations in the lineage column of table below are not a part of the squadron designation system.  They are added to indicate that the designation was used more than once during the history of U.S. Naval Aviation and which use of the designation is indicated. Absence indicates that the designation was used only once.

Patrol and Reconnaissance (VP), Special Projects (VPU), Unmanned Patrol (VUP)

The VP designation is one of the oldest in the U. S. Navy and is the oldest designation currently in use. It first appeared in 1922 to designate "Seaplane Patrol Squadron" and from 1924 it has designated "Patrol Squadron". In 1982 the VPU Patrol Squadron Special Unit designation was created. Maritime patrol aircraft are used primarily for reconnaissance, anti-surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare. Volume 2 of the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons contains comprehensive histories over 150 patrol squadrons. Its Appendix 7 details the lineage of every VP, VPB, VP(H), and VP(AM) squadron from 1922 through the late 1990s.

In 2016 the first "unmanned" Patrol Squadron (VUP) was established. VUP-19 operates the MQ-4C Triton unmanned air vehicle from an operations center located at NAS Jacksonville while its aircraft with aircraft maintenance personnel are deployed around the world as required. A second VUP squadron is programmed for establishment in the future with an operations center at NAS Whidbey Island.

When not deployed VP squadrons are home-ported at NAS Jacksonville, FL or NAS Whidbey Island, WA.

Note: The parenthetical (1st), (2nd), (3rd) and (First use), (Second use) etc... appended to some designations in the table below are not part of the squadron designation system. They are added to indicate that the designation was used more than once during the history of U.S. Naval Aviation and which use of the designation is indicated. Absence indicates that the designation was used only once.

Fleet Air Reconnaissance (VQ)

The VQ designation was created in 1955 to designate "Electronic Countermeasures Squadron" and did so though 1959. By 1960 the VQ squadrons, rather than simply jamming communications and electronic signals, had been equipped to collect them for intelligence purposes. In January 1960 this new role of the VQ squadrons was recognized by changing the VQ designation from "Electronic Countermeasures Squadron" to "Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron." Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron ONE is currently the Navy's only overt signals intelligence (SIGINT) and communications intelligence (COMINT) reconnaissance squadron. The 13 EP-3E aircraft in the Navy's inventory are based on the Orion P-3 airframe and provide fleet and theater commanders worldwide with near real-time tactical SIGINT and COMINT. With sensitive receivers and high-gain dish antennas, the EP-3E exploits a wide range of electronic emissions from deep within targeted territory.

Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadrons THREE and FOUR carry the VQ designation, but they are not reconnaissance squadrons; they are airborne command and control, and communications relay squadrons which provide survivable, reliable, and endurable airborne command, control, and communications between the National Command Authority (NCA) and U.S. strategic and non-strategic forces. The squadrons' E-6B aircraft are dual-mission aircraft, capable of fulfilling both the airborne strategic command post mission equipped with an airborne launch control system (ALCS) which is capable of launching U.S. land based intercontinental ballistic missiles and fulfilling the TACAMO ("Take Charge and Move Out") mission which links the NCA with Navy ballistic missile submarine forces during times of crisis. The aircraft carries a very low frequency communication system with dual trailing wire antennae for that communications relay mission.

Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron SEVEN is the E-6B Fleet Replacement Squadron, providing initial and requalification training for pilots, aircrewmen, and maintainers.  It operates E-6Bs on loan from VQ-3 and VQ-4, having returned a 737-600 it had previously operated on lease from Lauda Air.

Fleet Logistics Support (VR)

The VR designator was first established in 1942 to designated "Transport" or "Air Transport" or Fleet Logistic Air" squadrons. From 1958 to 1976, it designated "Fleet Tactical Support Squadron"; from 1976 to the present, it designates "Fleet Logistics Support Squadron". Today, all Fleet Logistics Support squadrons are U.S. Navy Reserve squadrons

Fleet Logistics Support Squadrons operate Navy Unique Fleet Essential Airlift (NUFEA) aircraft on a worldwide basis to provide responsive, flexible, and rapidly deployable air logistics support required to sustain combat operations from the sea. During peacetime, squadrons provide air logistics support for all Navy commands as well as provide continuous quality training for mobilization readiness. Fleet Logistics Support squadrons have no counterpart in the Regular Navy. They represent 100% of the Navy's medium and heavy intra-theater airlift, and operate year-round around the world, providing the critical link between deployed seagoing units and air mobility command logistics hubs. VR-1 provides dedicated airlift support to the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps.

The Headquarters of the Fleet Logistics Support Wing is based at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, TX, but the squadrons of the wing are based across the country from the east coast to Hawaii. In addition to the VR squadrons, the Fleet Logistics Support Wing also operates two "Executive Transport Detachments" based in Hawaii and Sigonella, Italy.

Note: The parenthetical (2nd), (3rd), or (second use), (third use), etc., appended to some designations in the table below are not part of the squadron designation system. They are added to indicate that the designation was used more than once during the history of U.S. Naval Aviation and which use of the designation is indicated. Absence indicates that the designation was used only once.

Fleet Logistics Support (VRC)

The VRC designation was established in 1960 to designate "Fleet Tactical Support Squadron". In 1976 the designation was changed to "Fleet Logistics Support Squadron."

There are two Fleet Logistic Support squadrons equipped with the C-2A Greyhound Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) aircraft – one on each coast. VRC-30 is based at Naval Air Station North Island, VRC-40 is based at Naval Station Norfolk. These squadrons send two-plane detachments with each deploying Carrier Air Wing. The C-2A Greyhound, more commonly referred to as a "COD" (short for Carrier onboard delivery), is used to deliver high priority parts, supplies, people, and mail to/from the carrier and shore sites near the carrier operating area.

The E-2 Hawkeye and C-2 Greyhound are built on the same airframe and have many similar characteristics. For this reason, both aircraft are trained for in the same Fleet Replacement Squadron, VAW-120 (see VAW section).

Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 30 (VRC-30)

Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 40 (VRC-40)

Fleet Logistics Multi-Mission (VRM)

"The CMV-22B Osprey long-range tiltrotor aircraft is the US Navy's future variant of MV-22B Osprey assault support aircraft developed by Bell Boeing for the US Marine Corps. The medium-lift variant will operate as a carrier on-board delivery (COD) aircraft to meet the logistics support requirements of the Joint Force Maritime Component Commander (JFMCC) during time-critical scenarios. It will replace Northrop Grumman-built C-2A Greyhound cargo aircraft that has been in service with the US Navy since the 1960s. The CMV-22B will be used by the US Navy for transportation of special warfare teams, mail and cargo from shore to its aircraft carriers, as well as for shore or sea-based combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) missions".

The development of the VRM designation and adoption of the CMV-22B demonstrates the Navy's intent to utilize the platform as a means of replacing the carrier-based C-2A Greyhound. This shift in direction has coincided with the formation of the Navy's first VRM squadron, the "Titans" of VRM-30 (The name of which was revived from the "Titans" of HSL-94).

Training (VT)

The VT designation was one of the original designations. It was established in 1921 to designate "Torpedo Plane Squadron". From 1922 to 1930 it designated "Torpedo & Bombing Squadron" and from 1930 to 1946 "Torpedo Squadron". In 1946 all remaining Torpedo Squadrons and Bombing Squadrons (VB) were redesignated "Attack Squadrons" (VA) and the VT designation was retired.

From 1927 to 1947 training squadrons were designated "VN". From 1947 to 1960 training units were not designated as squadrons, they were "units" or "groups" called Basic Training Groups (BTG), Advanced Training Units (ATU), Jet Transition Training Units (JTTU) or Multi Engine Training Groups (METG). On 1 May 1960 the VT designation was resurrected and existing flying training units were designated "Training Squadrons (VT)". There is no relationship between training squadrons designated VT since 1960 and the Torpedo or Torpedo and Bombing squadrons of the 1920s to 1940s.

There are two types of fixed wing training squadrons: Primary training squadrons train students in the first stage of flight training leading to selection to one of three advanced training pipelines for Aviators (Rotary Wing, Strike or Multi-Engine) or two advanced training pipelines for Flight Officers (Multi Crew or Strike). The advanced training squadrons conduct the final stage of flight training leading to "winging" of the new Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Training squadrons are organized differently than the Navy's operational squadrons as training squadrons do not own their own aircraft. All training aircraft are assigned to and maintained by the Training Air Wing to which the squadrons are assigned. The training squadrons are composed only of Instructors and Students, with all maintenance and support functions carried out by the Training Air Wing. Training aircraft are painted orange and white.

Air Test and Evaluation (VX), Scientific Development (VXS)

The VX designation was first used from 1927 to 1943 to designate "Experimental Squadron". It was again used beginning in 1946 when four "Experimental and Development" squadrons (VX-1 (still exists today), 2, 3 and 4) were established to develop and evaluate new equipment and methods. From 1946 to 1968 the designation was variously "Experimental and Development" squadron, "Operational Development" squadron, "Air Operational Development" squadron and "Air Development" squadron.  In 1969 the designation changed to "Air Test and Evaluation" and it remains as such today.

Test and Evaluation squadrons test everything from basic aircraft flying qualities to advanced aerodynamics to weapons systems effectiveness. VX-20, VX-23, VX-30, VX-31 (as well as HX-21 (rotary wing squadron) and UX-24 (UAS squadron)) are developmental test and evaluation squadrons which conduct or support developmental test and evaluation of aircraft and weapons as part of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIRSYSCOM) while VX-1 and VX-9 are operational test and evaluation squadrons which conduct operational test and evaluation of aircraft and weapons as part of the Operational Test and Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR).

Other Fixed Wing Aircraft Units

Other than the Naval Flight Demonstration Squadron (NFDS) "Blue Angels", the organizations in the table below are not technically "squadrons", however they either have custody of and routinely fly Navy aircraft or they routinely fly aircraft on loan from fleet squadrons for advanced training of those fleet squadrons.

The U.S. Naval Test Pilot School operates various fixed and rotary wing aircraft to train and graduate test pilots and test engineers.

The Navy Fighter Weapons School, Carrier Airborne Early Warning Weapons School and the Airborne Electronic Attack Weapons School train selected U. S. Navy Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers (NFO) in instructional techniques and in advanced tactics in their respective aircraft, qualifying them for assignment to their respective wing weapons schools (Strike Fighter Weapons School Lant and Pac, Electronic Attack Weapons School and Airborne Command Control and Logistics School) where they provide advanced training for each wing's squadrons utilizing squadron aircraft.

Rotary Wing Squadrons
US Navy rotary wing squadron designations start with the letter H. The first use of the letter H to designate a helicopter squadron was in 1948 with the establishment of Helicopter Utility Squadrons (HU) ONE and TWO. Prior to the creation of the HU designation, the two basic types of Navy squadrons were "heavier than air" squadrons designated with V as the first letter, and "lighter than air" squadrons designated with Z as the first letter. By 1961 the Navy had disestablished its last lighter than air squadrons leaving only the V and H designations. Since that time V has in practicality become the designation for "fixed wing squadron" and H for "rotary wing squadron." The Navy today uses helicopters primarily in the antisubmarine warfare, antisurface warfare, mine countermeasures, combat search and rescue, special operations, overwater search and rescue, and vertical replenishment roles.

Helicopter Mine Countermeasures (HM)

The HM designation was created in 1971 to designate "Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron". HM Squadrons employ 28 total MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters. The primary mission of the Sea Dragon is Airborne Mine Countermeasures (AMCM). The MH-53 can operate from aircraft carriers, large amphibious ships and the new expeditionary sea base and is capable of towing a variety of mine hunting/sweeping countermeasures systems.
The MH-53E Sea Dragon is also a capable heavy-lift asset, with three powerful turboshaft engines and a maximum take-off weight of . This gives the Sea Dragon the capability to carry an impressive amount of cargo, personnel or equipment over long distances. The Sea Dragon remains in service as the Navy's only heavy-lift helicopter and only proven mine countermeasure platform. While programmed to replace the USMC's CH-53E and not the Navy's MH-53E, the new Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion, intended to start flying its evaluations in 2015, has an increased MTOW figure of some 84,700 lb (38,400 kg), some 14,950 lb (6,781 kg) heavier than the Sea Dragon.

The Navy's recently completed "Helicopter Master Plan" was a plan to reduce the number of type/model/series from eight down to two (MH-60R and MH-60S). It recognized that the replacement of the MH-53 in the mine countermeasures role was dependent on technology which has not yet matured. As a result, the MH-53E continues in service as the only helicopter capable now and in the near future of effectively conducting airborne mine countermeasures.

Note: The parenthetical (second use) and (2nd) in the table below are not a part of the squadron designation system. They are added to indicate that the designation was used more than once during the history of U. S. Naval Aviation and which use of the designation is indicated.

Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC)

The Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Designation was created in 2005 after the Helicopter Combat Support (HC) squadrons equipped with the H-46 Sea Knight had completed their transitions to the new multi-mission MH-60S Seahawk, and in anticipation of the upcoming transition of the Helicopter Antisubmarine (HS) squadrons from the SH-60F and HH-60H Seahawks to the new MH-60S which began in 2007. The ASW capabilities resident in the HS squadrons were lost in the transition but the new HSC squadrons combine the at sea logistics capability of the former Helicopter Combat Support (HC) squadrons with greatly upgraded Combat Search and Rescue, Naval Special Warfare Support and Anti-Surface Warfare capabilities of the former Helicopter Anti-submarine squadrons (HS).

The HSC squadrons which were formerly HS squadrons are carrier based and deploy as part of a Carrier Air Wing, while the HSC squadrons which were formerly HC squadrons or were newly established are land based "expeditionary" squadrons which supply detachments for deployment aboard ships other than aircraft carriers or for land based deployments as required. The squadrons are home-ported at NS Norfolk, NAS North Island and Anderson AFB, Guam with one squadron forward deployed to NAF Atsugi, Japan. Expeditionary HSC squadrons are capable of deploying mixed detachments of MH-60S and MQ-8B aircraft.

Note: The parenthetical (2nd) used in the lineage column of table below is not a part of the squadron designation system. It is added to indicate that the designation was used more than once during the history of U. S. Naval Aviation and which use of the designation is indicated.

Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM)

The HSM designation was created in 2006 when the Fleet Replacement Squadron for the MH-60R Seahawk was redesignated from HSL. The new designation was created to reflect the MH-60Rs multi-mission capabilities which combined the area search capabilities of the SH-60B flown by the Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) squadrons with the dipping sonar of the SH-60F flown by the carrier based Helicopter Anti-Submarine (HS) squadrons. The first operational fleet squadron to receive the MH-60 Romeo was HSM-71 in fiscal year 2008. With the transition of the HS squadrons to HSC squadrons without any ASW capability and the disestablishment of the last Air Antisubmarine (VS) squadrons, all ship based airborne ASW capabilities now reside in the new HSM squadrons.

From 2009 to 2015 all Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light (HSL) squadrons transitioned to the MH-60R and were redesignated Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) squadrons. Additionally, new HSM squadrons were established in order to provide an HSM squadron to each Carrier Air Wing and to provide "Expeditionary" squadrons to supply detachments of MH-60Rs to ships other than aircraft carriers. Expeditionary HSM squadrons are capable of deploying mixed detachments of MH-60R and MQ-8B aircraft.

HSM squadrons are home-ported at NAS North Island, NAS Jacksonville, NS Mayport and MCAS Kaneohe Bay with two squadrons forward deployed to NAF Atsugi Japan and one squadron forward deployed to Naval Station Rota Spain.

Helicopter Training (HT)

The HT designation first appeared in May 1960 to designate Helicopter Training Squadron at the same time that the VT designation was resurrected to designate Training Squadron. In the early years of helicopter operations in the Navy, helicopter pilots were qualified fixed wing pilots who received transition training once they reported to a helicopter squadron. In 1950 a dedicated helicopter training unit was established and in 1960 that unit became the first HT squadron. As the demand for helicopter pilots increased over the decades, additional HT squadrons were established and today approximately 60% of the Student Naval Aviators from all services (Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard) are winged as helicopter pilots.

The Naval Air Training Command's Helicopter Training Squadrons provide advanced helicopter flight instruction to all Navy, US Marine Corps, and United States Coast Guard helicopter flight students as well as to international students from several allied nations. Student Naval Aviators are selected for helicopter training after completion of primary flight training in the T-6B in one of the VT squadrons. Students who successfully complete the program earn the right to wear the coveted "Wings of Gold."  and proceed on to their selected aircraft's Fleet Replacement Squadron. Training squadrons are organized differently than the Navy's operational squadrons as training squadrons do not own their own aircraft. All training aircraft are assigned to and maintained by the Training Air Wing to which the squadrons are assigned. The training squadrons are composed only of Instructors and Students, with all maintenance and support functions carried out by the Training Air Wing.

Air Test and Evaluation (HX)
Test and Evaluation squadrons test everything from basic aircraft flying qualities to advanced aerodynamics to weapons systems effectiveness. HX-21 conducts developmental test and evaluation of rotary wing and tilt rotor aircraft and weapons as part of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIRSYSCOM).

Other Rotary Wing Aircraft Units
The organizations in the table below are not technically "squadrons", however they either have custody of and routinely fly Navy aircraft or they routinely fly aircraft on loan from fleet squadrons for advanced training of those fleet squadrons. The Navy Rotary Wing Weapons School trains selected U. S. Navy Naval Aviators in instructional techniques and in advanced tactics for their respective aircraft, qualifying them for assignment to their respective wing weapons schools (Helicopter Sea Combat Weapons School Lant and Pac and Helicopter Maritime Strike Weapons School Lant and Pac) where they provide advanced training for each wing's squadrons utilizing squadron aircraft.

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Squadrons
The U.S. Navy operates a number of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) utilizing different organizational constructs. The operational MQ-4 Triton is organized into "Unmanned Patrol Squadrons" (VUP) which operate alongside manned "Patrol Squadrons" (VP) utilizing the same administrative and operational command structures for both VP and VUP squadrons (VUP squadrons are listed in the "Fixed Wing Squadrons" section above). MQ-8 Fire Scouts are operated by HSM and HSC squadrons along with the squadrons' MH-60R (HSM) and MH-60S (HSC) aircraft. In April 2018 a new squadron type designation was created apart from the existing "V" for fixed wing squadron and "H" for rotary wing squadron when Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Twenty Four (UX-24) was programmed for establishment to develop unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. This action created a third squadron type designation of "U".

Air Test and Evaluation (UX)
Test and Evaluation squadrons test everything from basic aircraft flying qualities to advanced aerodynamics to weapons systems effectiveness. UX-24 conducts developmental test and evaluation of fixed wing and rotary wing unmanned aerial systems (UAS) as part of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIRSYSCOM).

See also
 List of United States Navy aircraft wings
 Naval aviation
 List of inactive United States Navy aircraft squadrons
 Modern US Navy carrier air operations
 List of United States Navy aircraft designations (pre-1962) / List of US Naval aircraft
 United States Naval Aviator
 Naval Flight Officer
 United States Marine Corps Aviation
 NATOPS
 List of inactive United States Navy helicopter squadrons
 VBF

Notes

References

Aircraft squadrons list
Squadrons
Navy aircraft squadrons
Lists of flying squadrons

List of United States Navy aircraft squadrons


An Cyperus decompositus in uska species han Liliopsida nga syahan ginhulagway ni Robert Brown, ngan ginhatag han pagkayana nga asya nga ngaran ni Ferdinand von Mueller. An Cyperus decompositus in nahilalakip ha genus nga Cyperus, ngan familia nga Cyperaceae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Cyperus

Cyperus decompositus


1477 Bonsdorffia este un asteroid din centura principală de asteroizi.

Descriere
1477 Bonsdorffia este un asteroid din centura principală de asteroizi. A fost descoperit pe  la Turku de Yrjö Väisälä. El prezintă o orbită caracterizată de o semiaxă mare de 3,20 ua, o excentricitate de 0,28 și o înclinație de 15,7° în raport cu ecliptica.

Vezi și
 Lista planetelor minore: 1001-2000
 Centura de asteroizi

Referințe

Obiecte astronomice descoperite în 1938
Centura de asteroizi

1477 Bonsdorffia


David "Davey Boy" Smith (28 noiembrie 1962- 18 mai 2002) a fost un binecunoscut luptător profesionist de origine britanică. Davey, a fost cunoscut mai ales datorită aparițiilor sale în Wrestling World Wrestling și World Championship Wrestling în anii '90.

Cuvântul Boy al numelui lui se datorează unei greșeli a părinților săi de a specifica sexul în certificatul de naștere.

Note

Wrestleri englezi
Nașteri în 1962
Decese pe 18 mai
decese în 2002

The British Bulldog


Demonoloji veya diğer adıyla demonizm, Hıristiyan teolojisinin sistematik temsilleri, melek bilimine ek olarak bir demonlar doktrini içeriyordu, çünkü demonlar Hristiyan teolojisi tarafından düşmüş melekler olarak kavramsallaştırıldı. Malzemenin dogmatik işlenmesi genellikle soterioloji veya kristoloji gibi diğer incelemelere de başvurur. "Demon Bilimleri" anlamına gelir. Yunancada Daimon olarak yazılır ve ilahiyat, güç anlamına gelir.

Ortaçağ Teolojisi
Çoğu Hristiyan yazar, konu demonlar olduğunda Augustinus'un öğretilerine atıfta bulunur. Dünyanın ruhlara ve insanlara, iyiye ve kötüye ayrılabileceğini öğretti. İyi ruhlara "melekler", kötü ruhlara "demon" denirdi. Demonoloji üzerine bir diğer önemli yazar Thomas Aquinas'tır. Bedeni olmayan kötü varlıkların insanları etkileyip etkilemediğini ve nasıl etkileyebileceğini tartıştı. Bu tür varlıklar demonları etkileyebiliyorsa, bu özgür iradeyi saçma kılar mı? Aquin, demonların insan zihnini yalnızca imgelerle etkileyebileceği sonucuna varır, ancak buna katılan veya katılmayan özgür iradedir.

Avrupa Modern Çağı ve Modernitesi
İngiliz tarihçi Stuart Clark, çok beğenilen bir kitabında, demonları olan inancın, erken modern dönemde doğa anlayışının önemli bir parçası olduğunu göstermiştir. Clark'a göre demonoloji, doğal fenomenler için yaygın olarak kabul edilen açıklamalar sunan bir "fizik" idi. Bu değerlendirmeyle Stuart Clark, demonlari olan inancı öncelikle doğa bilimine karşı bir şey olarak gören eski tarih bilimine karşı çıktı. Clark'ın çalışmasından bu yana, farklı temel varsayımlara sahip açıklayıcı modellerin farklılıklarından çok benzerlikleri vurgulanmıştır.

19. yüzyıl yazarları, genellikle demonları olan inancı, animizm, çoktanrıcılık, tektanrıcılık gibi ön aşamalar veya sonraki aşamalar ve kategorilerle ilişkili olarak tarih felsefesi veya din tarihi ve evrim açısından sınıflandırmaya ve yorumlamaya çalışmışlardır. Günümüzün tarihsel anlayışına göre bu yorumlama girişimleri, delil bolluğunun hakkını pek veremez.

Kaynakça

Demonoloji

Demonoloji


James Claude Wright Jr. (December 22, 1922 – May 6, 2015) was an American politician who served as the 48th speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1987 to 1989. He represented Texas' 12th congressional district as a Democrat from 1955 to 1989.

Born in Fort Worth, Texas, Wright won election to the Texas House of Representatives after serving in the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. He won election to Congress in 1954, representing a district that included his home town of Fort Worth. Like most Texas Democrats, Wright distinguished himself from many of his fellow Southern congressmen in his refusal to sign the 1956 Southern Manifesto. He voted for the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1968, the final version of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and the initial House amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He also became a senior member of the House Public Works Committee.

In 1976, Wright narrowly won election to the position of House Majority Leader. Wright voted in favor of the bill establishing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a federal holiday in August 1983. He became Speaker of the House after Tip O'Neill retired in 1987. In March 1988, Wright led the House Democratic Caucus as Speaker to override President Reagan's veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Wright resigned from Congress in June 1989 amid a House Ethics Committee investigation into compensation that he and his wife had received. After leaving Congress, Wright became a professor at Texas Christian University. He died in Fort Worth in 2015.

Early life
Wright was born in Fort Worth, the son of Marie (Lyster) and James Claude Wright. Wright was of English and Irish ancestry. Because his father was a traveling salesman, Wright and his two sisters were reared in numerous communities in Texas and Oklahoma. He mostly attended Fort Worth and Dallas public schools, eventually graduating from Adamson High School (formerly Oak Cliff High School). He studied at Weatherford College and the University of Texas at Austin, but did not graduate.

In December 1941, Wright enlisted in the United States Army Air Forces, and after training, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Corps in 1942. He trained as a bombardier and earned a Distinguished Flying Cross flying during combat in B-24 Liberators with the 530th Bomb Squadron, 380th Bomb Group (Heavy) in the South Pacific during World War II. His retelling of his wartime exploits is contained in his 2005 book The Flying Circus: Pacific War—1943—As Seen through A Bombsight.

After the war, he made his home in Weatherford, where he joined partners in forming a Trade Show exhibition and marketing firm. As a Democrat, he won his first election without opposition in 1946 to the Texas House of Representatives, where he served from 1947 to 1949. He was defeated in his bid for reelection in 1948, after a rival claimed that Wright was weak in opposing both communism and interracial marriage. He was the mayor of Weatherford from 1950 to 1954. In 1953, he served as president of the League of Texas Municipalities.

Career in Congress

In 1954, he was elected to Congress from Texas's 12th congressional district, which included Fort Worth and Weatherford. He won despite the fervid opposition off Fort Worth Star-Telegram publisher Amon G. Carter, who supported incumbent Democrat Wingate Lucas. Wright would be re-elected fourteen times, gradually rising in prominence in the party and in Congress. He developed a close relationship with Amon G. Carter Jr., and often repeated the axiom that the easiest way to "defeat an enemy is to make him your friend."

In 1956, Wright refused to join most of his regional colleagues in signing the segregationist Southern Manifesto, and voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 and 1968. Wright voted against the initial House resolution for the Civil Rights Act of 1957 on June 18, 1957, but voted in favor of the Senate amendment to the bill on August 27, 1957. Wright voted in favor of the House amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on July 9, 1965, but did not vote on the joint conference committee report on August 3, 1965. Wright voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The bill required desegregation of public accommodations and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Wright's reason for not supporting the bill had to do with the voting rights provision of the law, which Wright enthusiastically supported, and felt the Civil Rights Act was weak without the right to vote granted to all citizens. It was signed into law by Wright's friend, President Johnson. Wright also voted against the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Wright would later vote in favor of the bill establishing Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a federal holiday in August 1983 as well as lead the House Democratic Caucus as Speaker in March 1988 to override President Reagan's veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.

In the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, Jim Wright is infamous for the Wright Amendment, a contentious law he sponsored that restricted air travel from Dallas' secondary airport, Love Field. Passed in 1979, the Wright Amendment was originally designed to protect the then-fledgling Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. The Amendment allows non-stop flights originating from or bound to any commercial airport within  of the DFW Airport Control Tower to serve only states bordering Texas. It was the compromise agreed to with Southwest Airlines to expand their territory beyond Texas.  This requires any flight going to or coming from a destination within that  radius (Dallas Love Field and the now-defunct Greater Southwest International Airport in Fort Worth were the only airports affected) to land in a contiguous (bordering) state before continuing on to its destination. This effectively limited traffic from Love Field and GSIA to small, regional airlines (and provided the springboard for the later success of Southwest Airlines, which initially flew only within Texas) who were largely unable to compete with DFW Airport as a result. While the Amendment was welcomed at first, there were increasing doubts about its necessity as DFW grew into one of the three largest airports in the world. Many saw it as a boondoggle to benefit one particular group. Others saw it as an unlawful restraint of trade imposed against the two affected airports, and no others, in spite of the fact that public officials of Dallas and Ft Worth had agreed to the restrictions (Virginia McGuire, daughter of James C. Wright, direct conversation). However, the largest opposition came increasingly from people who simply felt that the amendment had outlived its usefulness and was also an unwarranted intrusion on the free markets of the deregulated airline industry. In 2006 Congress passed the Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006, which repealed the Wright Amendment in stages; the last restrictions on travel from Love Field were lifted on October 13, 2014.

Wright strongly supported the Superconducting Super Collider project in Waxahachie in Ellis County, but the work was halted in 1993.

Majority leader
In 1971, Wright was appointed a Democratic deputy whip, picked for ideological balance. In this role, he was assigned responsibility for persuading Southern Democrats to support House Democratic leadership. Though Wright never chaired a House committee or a high-profile subcommittee, he used his outgoing personality to obtain commitments from friends and his two decades of seniority on the Public Works Committee to amass obligations from colleagues by helping secure funding for federal buildings, roads, highway interchanges, and water projects. These efforts left him well-positioned to campaign for a position in the House leadership when a vacancy occurred.

In the December 1976 House Democratic leadership elections, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill faced no opposition to succeed Carl Albert as Speaker of the House. The contest to succeed O'Neill included Wright, Phillip Burton, Richard Bolling, and John McFall. Burton was assumed to be the frontrunner, and on the first ballot, he received 106 votes, Bolling 81, Wright 77, and McFall 31. According to Democratic caucus rules, the low finisher was obligated to withdraw, which McFall did. On the second ballot, Burton received 107 votes, Wright 95, and Bolling 93. With Bolling eliminated, on the third ballot, Wright won with 148 votes to 147 for Burton.

Speaker of the House

When the 100th Congress convened on January 6, 1987, Wright was elected Speaker of the House (254–173 over Republican Robert H. Michel), succeeding Tip O'Neill, who had retired after 10 years in the post. At the time, Wright stated that being speaker of the House "is the greatest responsibility that can come to a lawmaker anywhere in the world."

In July 1988, he chaired the Democratic Party convention that nominated Michael Dukakis for president. During that convention, Wright introduced John F. Kennedy Jr. for Kennedy's first televised speech. Almost 25 years earlier, on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy, in his last speech before being assassinated, praised Wright's service in the Congress, saying "and here in Fort Worth he has contributed to its growth. He speaks for Fort Worth and he speaks for the country, and I don't know any city that is better represented in the Congress of the United States than Fort Worth."

While Dukakis lost the 1988 presidential election to Republican George H. W. Bush, Democrats retained control of the House in the coinciding congressional elections, thus when the 101st Congress opened on January 3, 1989, Wright was re-elected as speaker.  According to historian Julian E. Zelizer, the majority Democrats ran roughshod over the Republican (GOP) minority. They minimized the number of staff positions available to the minority, kept them out of decision-making, and gerrymandered their home districts. Firebrand Republican Newt Gingrich argued that American democracy was being ruined by the Democrats' tactics and that the GOP had to destroy the system before it could be saved. Cooperation in governance, says Zelizer, was put aside as they deposed Speaker Wright and regained power. Gingrich gained support from the media (always looking for scandal) and from good government forces in his crusade to persuade Americans that the system was, in Gingrich's words,  "morally, intellectually and spiritually corrupt." Gingrich did force out Wright, but after he became Speaker Gingrich was himself forced out and scandal ruined the careers of other top GOP leaders.

Aide controversy
In May 1989, controversy arose when media reports revealed that Wright's top assistant, John Mack, had violently attacked a woman 16 years earlier. The woman, Pamela Small, was hit repeatedly with a hammer, stabbed and slashed with a knife and left for dead. Small survived the attack, and reported it to the police. Mack was convicted of malicious wounding and was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but was paroled after serving 27 months. Mack, whose brother was married to Wright's daughter, was given a clerk's job in the Capitol upon his release. He went on to become the executive director of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and served as Wright's chief legislative strategist. Critics, including feminist activist Andrea Dworkin, alleged that Wright manipulated the legal system to get Mack off and, subsequently, protected him from media scrutiny. Amid the blistering public criticism, John Mack resigned from his post on May 11, and House members of both parties began to question whether Wright could long-remain as speaker.

Ethics investigation and resignation

In 1988 Wright became the target of an inquiry by the House Ethics Committee. Their report in early 1989 implied that he had used bulk purchases of his book, Reflections of a Public Man, to earn speaking fees in excess of the allowed maximum, and that his wife, Betty, was given a job and perks to avoid the limit on gifts. Faced with an increasing loss of effectiveness, Wright tendered his resignation as Speaker on May 31, 1989, the resignation to become effective on the selection of a successor. He was the first Speaker to resign because of a scandal. On June 6, the Democratic Caucus brought Wright's speakership to an end by selecting his replacement, Tom Foley of Washington, and on June 30 Wright resigned his seat in Congress.

The incident was controversial and was a part of the increasing partisan infighting that has plagued the Congress ever since. The original charges were filed by Newt Gingrich in 1988 and their effect propelled Gingrich's own career advancement to the Speaker's chair.

Michael Parenti, critic of the national security state, attributed Wright's forced resignation to the critical questions he was raising in the late 1980s with regard to CIA covert actions in Nicaragua.  Wright had not only criticized Reagan's policy, but taken the extremely unusual step of entering into negotiations with the Nicaraguan government as Speaker.

William K. Black claims that Wright's interventions in the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis "were decisive in forcing him to resign in disgrace from the House".  Black wrote that Wright had been saved from financial ruin and elevated to Speaker of the House by massive campaign contributions from control frauds like Charles Keating.  The control frauds managed to get hundreds of executives of S&Ls, many legitimate, to talk with their representatives in the US congress to delay effective governmental action against the frauds.  This action only increased (a) the billions of dollars their ultimate failures cost the US taxpayers and (b) the magnitude of the resulting scandal. Wright's account of these facts was very different, citing both abuse of power by regulators, and money laundering by S&Ls in the profits diverted to Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra scandal. The scandal robbed Wright's Democratic party of the "sleaze factor" issue in the 1988 presidential election, thereby handing the election to the Republican George H. W. Bush, according to Black.  He resigned to avoid the official documentation of his role in this that would almost certainly have come from hearings by the United States House Committee on Ethics, as it did for the Keating Five.  Wright's personal and public account of why he resigned was very different from that cited by William Black, who claimed Wright abused his power and certainly had reason to protect his own position and decisions at the Federal Home Loan Bank.

The charges filed against Wright did not mention Nicaragua.  The Iran-Contra operations from 1984 through most of 1986 involved the secret governmental support of Contra military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua, despite Congressional prohibition on the support.  The Reagan White House was very involved in the sale of U.S. arms to Iran in contravention of stated U.S. policy and in possible violation of arms-export controls. In late November 1986, Reagan Administration officials announced that some of the proceeds from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran had been diverted to the Contras. President Bush's pardon of Secretary Weinberger on December 24, 1992, pre-empted a trial in which defense counsel indicated that they intended to call Bush as a witness.

A report by special counsel implicated him in a number of influence peddling charges, such as Vernon Savings and Loan, and attempting to get William K. Black fired as the deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) under Gray.  However, the charges against him concluded that, "while the Congressman's dealings with representatives of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board may have been intemperate, the committee was not persuaded that there is reason to believe that he exercised undue influence in his dealings with that agency."

Life after Congress
After his resignation from the House, Wright retired to Fort Worth. He served as a professor at Texas Christian University there, teaching a course titled "Congress and the Presidents."  He also wrote several books after his retirement. He was an avid reader but was stricken with macular degeneration.

In November 2013, Wright was denied a voter ID card at a Texas Department of Public Safety office, as he hadn't brought the duly-required documentation with him on the day of his visit.  He told the Fort Worth Star Telegram that "Nobody was ugly to us, but they insisted that they wouldn't give me an ID."  Wright expressed concern that the Texas voter ID law will unfairly deny elderly voters like himself the ability to vote.  Wright indicated that he had worked out a solution with the Texas DPS that would allow him to cast a ballot in an upcoming election, but feared that other elderly people, especially those in retirement homes, would be unable to navigate the requirements.

Toward the end of his life, in May 2014, Wright expressed regret over resigning as Speaker of the House. He said it may have been a "gross misjudgment" at the time.

Death
Wright died at the age of 92 on May 6, 2015. He was survived by his wife Betty and four children. He had previously undergone surgery twice to treat cancer, though it is not clear if his death was cancer-related.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, stated, "Speaker Wright was a person of deep courage, brilliant eloquence, and complete mastery of the legislative process. Speaker Wright's strong, decisive leadership built an indelible legacy of progress, not only in his beloved state of Texas, but around the world. Wright championed prosperity for every working family, and helped lead the way to peace to Central America." The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, R-OH, stated that, "Speaker Wright understood as well as anyone this institution's closeness to the people, calling the House 'the raw essence of the nation'." President Barack Obama stated, "As a representative from Texas and Speaker of the House, Jim was passionate about investing in infrastructure, and he worked tirelessly to promote peace in Central America. Today, our thoughts and prayers are with Jim's family and friends, and the people he represented in Congress for so many years."

See also
 List of federal political scandals in the United States

References

Notes

Further reading
Barry, John. The Ambition and the Power: The Fall of Jim Wright: A True Story of Washington. New York: Viking Press, 1989. . (Paperback: Penguin, 1992. )

Wright, Jim. Balance of Power: Presidents and Congress from the Era of McCarthy to the Age of Gingrich. Turner Publications, 1996. .
Wright, Jim. Reflections of a Public Man. Fort Worth, Texas: Madison Publishing Company, 1984.
Wright, Jim. The Flying Circus: Pacific War—1943—As Seen Through A Bombsight. Guilford, Connecticut: The Lyons Press, 2005. .
Wright, Jim. The Coming Water Famine.  New York: Coward-McCann, 1966.
 Zelizer, Julian E. Burning Down the House: Newt Gingrich, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party (Penguin, 2020).

External links

Photos from the Jim Wright Collection at the Portal to Texas History

|-

|-

|-

|-

1922 births
2015 deaths
Speakers of the United States House of Representatives
Majority leaders of the United States House of Representatives
Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives from Texas
Democratic Party members of the Texas House of Representatives
Mayors of places in Texas
20th-century American politicians
United States Army Air Forces officers
United States Army Air Forces personnel of World War II
Recipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United States)
Texas Christian University faculty
University of Texas at Austin alumni
Weatherford College alumni
Writers from Texas
American people of English descent
American people of Irish descent
American United Methodists
Politicians from Dallas
Politicians from Fort Worth, Texas
People from Weatherford, Texas
20th-century Methodists
W. H. Adamson High School alumni

Jim Wright


An Microcoelia hirschbergii in uska species han Liliopsida nga ginhulagway ni Victor Samuel Summerhayes. An Microcoelia hirschbergii in nahilalakip ha genus nga Microcoelia, ngan familia nga Orchidaceae. Waray hini subspecies nga nakalista.

Mga kasarigan

Microcoelia

Microcoelia hirschbergii


Ünalan, Üsküdar - İstanbul ili Üsküdar ilçesine bağlı mahalle
 Ünalan, Alaca - Çorum ili Alaca ilçesine bağlı köy
 Ünalan, Kalkandere - Rize ili Kalkandere ilçesine bağlı köy

Ünalan


أييا ترياس (Αγία Τριάς) هي مدينة في ثيسالونيكي في مقاطعة فوريا إلادا في اليونان.

يبلغ عدد سكانها حوالي 4431 نسمة.

مراجع

أماكن مأهولة في سالونيك (وحدة إقليمية)
مدن اليونان

أييا ترياس (ثيسالونيكي)


Alíana er íslenskt kvenmannsnafn.

Dreifing á Íslandi
Gögnin eru unnin upp úr Þjóðskrá Íslands fyrir árabilið 1950-2022. Dökku súlurnar sýna fjölda nafngifta fyrir nafnið sem fyrsta nafn og ljósu súlurnar sem seinna eiginnafn það árið. Hlutfallstölur eru reiknaðar út frá fjölda nafngifta af samþykktum íslenskum nöfnum, hlutfall seinna nafns er reiknað út frá heildarfjölda seinni eiginnafna það árið.

Heimildir

Íslensk kvenmannsnöfn

Alíana


Um crime sem vítimas é um ato ilegal que normalmente envolve diretamente apenas aquele a que se realizou ou entre adultos que consentem. Por ser de natureza consensual, se há ou não uma vitima é uma questão de debate. As definições de crimes sem vítimas variam em diferentes partes do mundo e em diferentes sistemas jurídicos, mas geralmente incluem posse de qualquer contrabando ilegal, uso de drogas recreativas, prostituição e comportamento sexual proibido, suicídio assistido, entre outras infrações semelhantes.

Na política, um lobista ou um ativista pode usar o termo crime sem vítimas com a implicação de que a lei em questão deveria ser abolida.

Os crimes sem vítimas são, no princípio do dano alheio de John Stuart Mill, "sem vítimas" a partir de uma posição que considera o indivíduo como o único soberano, com a exclusão de organismos mais abstratos, tais como uma comunidade ou um Estado contra os quais os delitos criminais podem ser dirigidos. Eles podem ser considerados ofensas contra o Estado e não contra a sociedade.

Definição
De acordo com o Diretor Executivo de Politicas Publicas da Universidade de Chicago, Jim Leitzel, três características podem ser usadas para identificar se um crime é um crime sem vítimas: se o ato for excessivo, é indicativo de um padrão distinto de comportamento e os seus efeitos adversos afetam apenas a pessoa que o praticou.

Em teoria, cada governo determina suas próprias leis para maximizar a felicidade de seus cidadãos. Mas à medida que o conhecimento, o comportamento e os valores mudam, as leis na maioria dos países ficam muito atrás dessas mudanças sociais. Uma vez que a maioria acredita que a lei é desnecessária, esta lei proíbe um crime sem vítimas, até que seja revogada.

Muitos crimes sem vítimas começam devido ao desejo de obter produtos ou serviços ilegais que estão em alta demanda. As penalidades criminais, portanto, tendem a limitar mais a oferta do que a demanda, elevando o preço do mercado negro e criando lucros de monopólio para os criminosos que permanecem no negócio. Essa "tarifa do crime" incentiva o crescimento de grupos criminosos sofisticados e bem organizados. O crime organizado, por sua vez, tende a se diversificar para outras áreas do crime. Grandes lucros fornecem amplos fundos para suborno de funcionários públicos, bem como capital para diversificação.

A Guerra às Drogas é um exemplo comumente citado de acusação de crimes sem vítimas. O raciocínio por trás disso é que o uso de drogas não prejudica diretamente outras pessoas. Um argumento dispõe-se de que a criminalização das drogas leva a preços altamente inflacionados para as drogas. Por exemplo, Hugo Bedau e Edwin Schur descobriram em 1974 que:

 Na Inglaterra, o custo farmacêutico da heroína [era] 0,06 centavos por grão. Nos Estados Unidos, o preço de rua era de US$ 30 a 90 por grão.

Acredita-se que essa inflação de preços leva os viciados a cometer crimes como roubo e furto, que são considerados inerentemente prejudiciais à sociedade, a fim de poderem comprar as drogas das quais são dependentes.

Além da criação de um mercado negro de drogas, a Guerra às Drogas é argumentado pelos defensores da legalização como uma forma de redução de mão-de-obra, prejudicando a capacidade das pessoas condenadas de encontrar um trabalho. É raciocinado que esta redução da força de trabalho é, em última análise, prejudicial para uma economia dependente do trabalho. O número de prisões por drogas aumenta a cada ano. Em uma pesquisa feita pelo Bureau of Justice Statistics entre 1980 e 2009, "[durante] um período de 30 anos... as taxas de [prisão] por posse ou uso de drogas dobraram para brancos e triplicaram para negros".

Vera Bergelson afirma que o crime sem vítimas vem em quatro variedades principais:

 Um ato que não prejudique os outros (suicídio, uso de drogas)
 Uma transação entre adultos consentidos que não prejudique os outros (suicídio assistido, jogos de azar, prostituição)
 Um ato cujas consequências são suportadas pela sociedade em geral (evasão fiscal, insider trading)
 Ações que são proibidas por serem consideradas imorais (sexo homossexual, incesto, queima de bandeiras)

Legalização de atos sem vítimas
Muitas atividades que antes eram consideradas crimes não são mais ilegais em alguns países, pelo menos em parte devido ao seu status de crimes sem vítimas.

Duas grandes categorias de crimes sem vítimas são o prazer sexual e o uso recreativo de drogas (prazer das drogas). No primeiro,

 O sexo homossexual foi legalizado em muitos países, sendo o primeiro na França em 1791.
 Outros assuntos sexuais considerados crimes sem vítimas e propostos para legalização incluem incesto adulto consensual e sexting por adolescentes (considerado pornografia infantil).

O uso de maconha é proibido por lei na Austrália, mas é a "droga ilícita mais usada" no país, assim como em países como Estados Unidos e Nova Zelândia. A proibição do álcool nos Estados Unidos, revogada em 1933, é considerada um "experimento social" fracassado porque muitos cidadãos ignoraram o que estipulava, voltando-se para destilados caseiros em vez de bebidas alcoólicas licenciadas e, consequentemente, piorando os problemas. Nos Estados Unidos hoje, a tensão sobre a legalização da maconha é uma resposta à atual proibição da maconha na maioria dos estados, mas há esforços para legalizar a maconha em muitos países, como Estados Unidos e Austrália, pois sua legalização tem o potencial de aumentar muito a receita.

A prostituição é legal em muitos países, embora geralmente restrita. A Holanda legalizou a prostituição em 1999 e foi um dos primeiros países a fazê-lo. A partir de 2012, no entanto, vem considerando mudanças de política para restringi-lo severamente.

O adultério (atos sexuais entre uma pessoa casada e uma pessoa que não seja o cônjuge) e a fornicação (atos sexuais entre pessoas solteiras) não são processados nos Estados Unidos há mais de 50 anos, embora as leis contra eles, como as contra a sodomia, sejam ainda nos livros em vários estados. No entanto, como as leis de sodomia foram consideradas inconstitucionais pela Suprema Corte dos EUA em Lawrence v. Texas, as leis contra a fornicação também seriam inconstitucionais, como foi reconhecido pela Suprema Corte da Virgínia em Martin v. Ziherl.

Controvérsia
Uma grande preocupação entre os opositores da legalização de crimes sem vítimas é a degradação dos padrões morais da sociedade, mas punir os cidadãos por sua escolha de se envolver em atos sem vítimas declarados pela lei como imorais é difícil. Embora a resposta típica dos Estados Unidos aos crimes seja retroativa, a ilegalidade de crimes sem vítimas é uma abordagem mais preventiva à justiça e é altamente controversa.

As controvérsias sobre crimes sem vítimas lidam principalmente com a questão de saber se um crime pode realmente ser sem vítimas. Com relação às drogas e seu caminho para o consumo, o impacto do tráfico de drogas e das leis de responsabilidade sobre os traficantes, suas famílias e outros atores imprevistos pode terminar em vitimização. Outro ato frequentemente considerado um crime sem vítimas é a posse de pornografia, especialmente pornografia infantil fictícia, mas aqueles que ocupam essa posição normalmente reconhecem a vitimização de adultos ou crianças durante sua produção.

Em contraste, há o argumento para restringir os poderes legais, para permitir que o cidadão possua liberdade de fazer escolhas pessoais sem vítimas que podem ou não ser percebidas como moralmente erradas.Leis preventivas, como registros de criminosos sexuais e ordens de comportamento anti-social, obscurecem a distinção entre direito penal e civil porque o crime sem vítimas é normalmente difícil de categorizar e criminalizar. Isso é problemático porque provoca uma distorção dos procedimentos tradicionais dos aspectos criminais e cíveis do direito ao possibilitar a confusão e a intercambialidade processual.

Criminalidade
Terminologia política
Liberalismo
Criminologia
Libertarismo
Agorismo

Crime sem vítima


Bernsdorf ist ein Gemeindeteil des Ortsteils Saalfelder Höhe der Stadt Saalfeld/Saale im Landkreis Saalfeld-Rudolstadt in Thüringen.

Geografie
Der Ortsteil Saalfelder Höhe liegt in der Mitte zwischen Saalfeld und den Kammlagen des Thüringer Waldes auf einer Höhe zwischen 500 und 700 Meter über NN. Bernsdorf hingegen befindet sich auf einem kupierten Hochplateau in 645 Meter über NN im Thüringer Schiefergebirge an der Kreisstraße 136. Die Gemarkung des Dorfes ist von Wald eingegrenzt. Südlich dieser Flur führt die Bundesstraße 281 von Gera über Saalfeld nach Eisfeld vorüber.

Geschichte
Der 2012 mit 73 Personen bewohnte Ort wurde 1161–1186 erstmals urkundlich erwähnt. Die Gemeinde geht von 1414  aus. Die Menschen lebten im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert vor allem vom Schieferabbau bzw. von der Schieferverwertung. Es gab auch eine Brauerei für den Ort. Die Landwirtschaft wurde nur als Nebenerwerb in Weidenutzung hauptsächlich mit Jungrindern wie auch heute betrieben.

Von 1994 bis 1996 gehörte die einst selbständige Gemeinde der Verwaltungsgemeinschaft Saalfelder Höhe an. Zum 1. Januar 1997 erfolgte der Zusammenschluss der Mitgliedsgemeinden zur Einheitsgemeinde Saalfelder Höhe. Diese wurde am 6. Juli 2018 nach Saalfeld/Saale eingemeindet.

Weblinks

Einzelnachweise

Geographie (Saalfeld/Saale)
Ort im Landkreis Saalfeld-Rudolstadt
Ehemalige Gemeinde (Landkreis Saalfeld-Rudolstadt)
Ersterwähnung im 12. Jahrhundert
Gemeindeauflösung 1997

Bernsdorf (Saalfeld)


نصوح النكدلي لاعب كرة قدم سوري من مواليد حمص، لعب مع نادي مسيمير، بدأ مع ناشئي الكرامة ثم تم ترفيعه مباشرة إلى فئة الرجال موسم 2009-2010. ويلعب الآن مع نادي الكرامة السوري.

روابط خارجية

مراجع

لاعبو كرة قدم رجالية سوريون
لاعبو كرة قدم رجالية سوريون مغتربون
لاعبو كرة قدم رجالية مغتربون في سلطنة عمان
لاعبو كرة قدم رجالية مغتربون في مصر
لاعبو كرة قدم رجالية مغتربون في قطر
لاعبو كرة قدم رجالية مغتربون في العراق
لاعبو وسط كرة قدم رجالية
أشخاص على قيد الحياة
أشخاص من حمص
رياضيون سوريون مغتربون في العراق
رياضيون سوريون مغتربون في سلطنة عمان
رياضيون سوريون مغتربون في قطر
رياضيون سوريون مغتربون في مصر
رياضيون من حمص
لاعبو الدوري السوري
لاعبو الدوري المصري الممتاز
لاعبو دوري الدرجة الثانية القطري
لاعبو دوري المحترفين العماني
لاعبو كرة قدم سوريون
لاعبو كرة قدم مغتربون سوريون
لاعبو كرة قدم مغتربون في العراق
لاعبو كرة قدم مغتربون في عمان
لاعبو كرة قدم مغتربون في قطر
لاعبو كرة قدم مغتربون في مصر
لاعبو كرة قدم من حمص
لاعبو منتخب سوريا لكرة القدم
لاعبو نادي أهلي حلب
لاعبو نادي الخابورة
لاعبو نادي الكرامة
لاعبو نادي الوحدة (سوريا)
لاعبو نادي زاخو
لاعبو نادي سموحة
لاعبو نادي مسيمير
لاعبو نادي نفط الوسط
مواليد 1413 هـ
مواليد 1993

نصوح النكدلي


යසුෂි අකෂි (明石 康 Akashi Yasushi, උපත ජනවාරි 19, 1931 අකිතා ප්‍රාන්තයේ හිනයි නගරය)  ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ ජපාන රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රිකයෙක් සහ එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ පරිපාලකයෙකි. හෙතෙම එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ මහලේකම් කාර්යාලයේ නිව්යෝක් නුවර මූලස්ථානය මගින් දේශපාලනිකව අන්තර්ජාතික සිවිල් සේවකයෙක් ලෙස පත් කරන ලදී.
මහජන තොරතුරු පිළිබඳ උප-ලේකම්-ජනරාල්, නිරායුධකරණය තොරතුරු පිළිබඳ උප-ලේකම්-ජනරාල් සහ  මානවවාදී කටයුතු හා හදිසි සහන පිළිබඳ උප-ලේකම්-ජනරාල් යන පදවි උසුලන ලදී.

නොයෙක් අන්‍ය අතිරේක නියමයන් අතර යුද්ධයට පෙර යුගෝස්ලෝවියාවේ ලේකම්-ජනරාල්වරයාගේ පෞද්ගලික නියෝජිත ලෙස කටයුතුකරන ලදී.
එසේම ඔහු  1993 කාම්බෝජියානු මැතිවරණයටපසු  සාම සාකච්ජා  අධීක්ෂණය කරනලදී.
එතැනදී ඔහුගේ සාර්ථකත්වය ගැන නොසලකා බෝල්කනයේ පසුකාලීන ක්‍රියාකලාපය පිලිබඳව ඔහුව තරයේ විවේචනය කරන ලදී.
ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් ඊට හේතු වූයේ සර්බිනියානු සමූලඝාතනය වැලැක්වීමට නොහැකි වීමයි.

ශ්‍රීලංකා රජය හා දෙමළ කොටි ත්‍රස්තවාදීන් අතර ගිවිසුමට පහසුකම් සැලසීම සඳහා 2006 සැප්තැම්බර් මස ශ්‍රීලංකාවට පැමිණියේය.

ජපන් රාජ්‍යතාන්ත්‍රිකයින්
1931 උපත්
ජීවමාන මිනිසුන්

යසුෂි අකෂි


Comisariatul Guvernamental pentru Ungaria de Răsărit () a fost o instituție secundară a administrației civile din timpul Republicii Democrate Ungare, cu sediul la Cluj. A fost subordonată direct administrației centrale ungare din Budapesta, dar a avut și unele atribuții autonome, precum și un rol de autoritate politică. Înființat în urma ședinței guvernului ungar din 6 decembrie 1918, și-a încetat activitatea la 23 ianuarie 1919, în momentul în care întreaga sa arhivă precum și birourile sale au fost sechestrate de către Armata României.

Scopul existenței sale a fost acela de a coordona administrarea civilă a celor 26 de comitate revendicate de către Regatul României și deja proclamate ca fiind unite cu acesta. Rolul său a fost acela de a contracara funcționarea Consiliului Dirigent, dorindu-se a fi organul executiv al Comitetului Ardelenesc al Consiliului Național Maghiar. A avut mai degrabă funcția unui minister decît cea a unui guvern al Transilvaniei.

Din momentul în care a fost proclamată la Alba Iulia unirea Transilvaniei cu România, schimbarea autorității statale s-a produs sub forma unui proces istoric treptat și nu automat, în Cluj. Astfel, autoritatea instituțiilor Republicii Ungare și a organismelor politice de pe plan local care depindeau de sistemul politic din Ungaria s-a diminuat treptat, în timp ce poziția Senatului Național Român și autoritatea Consiliului Dirigent s-au întărit treptat. Preluarea imperiumului s-a făcut astfel într-un mod diplomatic, pentru a preveni unele reacții violente venite din partea susținătorilor statalității ungare.

Premise
În ultimul deceniu de existență, monarhia austro-ungară a apelat la un centralism excesiv care a generat în Transilvania o reacție autonomistă, la nivelul unei părți a intelectualității maghiare ardelene, care alături de mica nobilime maghiară locală ajunsese să se simtă frustrată și depreciată la rangul unei elite de provincie. Fenomenul respectiv – care s-a accentuat după izbucnirea Primului Război Mondial pe fondul sentimentului de abandon de către autoritățile centrale ungare – nu s-a manifestat prin tendințe secesioniste, ci prin acțiuni menite să determine acordarea unei atenții mai mari de către autoritățile de la Budapesta, vieții economice și culturale transilvănene. A apărut astfel o atitudine de frondă față de  centralismul de stat, manifestată prin resuscitarea patriotismului local sub forma transilvanismului, dar fără a exprima tendințe secesioniste.

Spre sfârșitul Primei Mari Conflagrații, a prins astfel contur pe hârtie ca urmare a inițiativei unor intelectuali maghiari ardeleni care s-au exprimat public, conceptul mai vechi privind crearea la Cluj a unui centru secund de putere. Deși cu unele atribuții autonome, acesta urma să fie subordonat direct Budapestei.

Deputatul comitatens din Gheorgheni – Artúr Vákár – a fost unul dintre promotorii acestei idei. Pentru a sensibiliza opinia publică în ceea ce privește nemulțumirile maghiarilor ardeleni, acesta a publicat articole pe această temă în ziarele centrale precum și în ziarul local clujean "Kolozsvári Hírlap". În iunie 1917, pentru a primi  sprijin în ce privește înființarea a unui minister al Transilvaniei, acesta a luat legătura cu István Apáthy, care  reprezenta o autoritate morală remarcabilă și avea influență asupra a diferite organizații culturale și sociale. În acel moment membru al consiliului municipal clujean din partea unui partid aflat în opoziție, Apáthy urma să facă inițiativa deputatului cunoscută consiliului din care făcea parte, în timp ce Vákár urma să facă același lucru în congregația comitatului Ciuc. De la nivel local, propunerea respectivă a ajuns în parlamentul de la Budapesta și la guvern, dar fără a se putea concretiza în mod pratic.

Context
În circumstanțele politico-militare din 1918 și din cu totul alte considerente, inițiativa unei autorități politice autonome maghiare în Transilvania – promovată în urmă cu peste un an de către Vákár și Apáthy – a fost reactualizată.

Odată cu înaintarea trupelor române în Transilvania și cu ocuparea celui de al doilea aliniament al liniei de demarcație militară dintre trupele maghiare și românești, a apărut perspectiva ca pe întregul teritoriu transilvănean să fie instalate trupe din Regatul României. În acest context, Consiliul Național Maghiar invocându-și rolul de protector al "maghiarilor, secuilor și sașilor față de ocuparea Transilvaniei", a urgentat crearea unui organ central care să se ocupe de interesele respectivelor naționalități.

Apáthy nu ar fi avut cum să facă față dezorganizării maghiarilor transilvăneni fără o autoritate efectivă, după Proclamația de la Alba Iulia și în contextul înaintării trupelor române, astfel că a plecat la 2 decembrie 1918 la Budapesta pentru a se sfătui cu membrii guvernului ungar.

Încercările de consolidarea a puterii politice ungare în Transilvania s-au asociat cu un complex de măsuri, dintre care înființarea unui organism distinct în provincie nu a fost decât o parte. Astfel, în aceleași coordonate s-au înscris înființarea Diviziei Secuiești, apelurile făcute de guvernul ungar sașilor de a se opune intrării trupelor române în Transilvania și tentativa de a intra în tratative cu Armata Mackensen pentru același scop, precum și dispoziția ca în cazul unirii Transilvaniei cu România, funcționarii maghiari de aici să nu depună jurământul de fidelitate față de noul stat.

Înființare

A fost rolul deputatului parlamentar originar din secuime Gábor Ugron să-i propună la 4 decembrie ministrului de interne Batthyányi, înființarea la Cluj a unui "Comisariat Guvernamental pentru Ungaria de Răsărit" pentru cele 26 de comitate revendicate de către statul român, care comitate erau deja proclamate ca fiind unite cu Regatul României. Tot acesta l-a propus și pe Apáthy în fruntea respectivei instituții, iar viitorul comisar a acceptat, condiționând însă acest lucru de păstrarea catedrei sale la Universitate. Apáthy a refuzat însă să primească vreo indemnizație bănească, pentru serviciul pe care urma să-l presteze ocupând postul respectiv.

La 6 decembrie, în ședința guvernului Károly, ministrul Batthányi l-a propus oficial pe Apáthy în funcția de comisar general guvernamental investit "cu puteri depline în fruntea administrației civile", ceea ce plenul guvernului a acceptat. Apáthy, pe de o parte urma să aibă dreptul de a trata cu oficialitățile competente chestiunile care țineau de aplicarea Convenției militare de armistițiu de la Belgrad, iar pe de altă parte primea mînă liberă să-și organizeze instituția pe care urma să o conducă, propunînd pentru ocuparea diverselor posturi funcționarii numiți oficial de guvern.

Numit Comisar General, Apáthy s-a întors din capitala ungară la 8 decembrie și a desemnat sarcina întocmirii unui proiect al statutului de funcționare al Comisariatului, celor numiți ca șefi ai departamentelor administrativ, József Papp și respectiv juridic, Albert Deák.

Structuri și competențe
În structura comisariatului au fost prevăzute 18 departamente (14 după o altă sursă). Ca și competențe, șefii acestora puteau decide în ce privește numărul și identitatea personalului angajat, precum și în cee ce privește probleme care nu aveau o importanță prea mare. Astfel, departamentele trebuiau să rezolve reclamații ale unor persoane fizice sau juridice și să emită dispoziții privitoare la organizarea sau funcționarea aprovizionării cu alimente și combustibil a centrelor de distribuire din Cluj, ori din alte localități.

Exista un Consiliu al șefilor de departamente, care prelua dezbaterea și deciziile legate de problemele majore, fiecare ședință a acestuia trebuind să se finalizeze cu un proces verbal. În caz de urgență, Comisarul General putea aviza rezolvarea acestora. Competența Comisarului General era extinsă la emiterea de ordonanțe, la propunerea numirilor în ce privește funcțiile Comisariatului și a organelor comitatense și la suspendarea șefilor de departamente sau a angajaților, în caz de suspiciune. Comisarul era de asemenea obligat să informeze permanent guvernul, în ceea ce privește propria sa activitate. Ca locțuitor al lui Apáthy a fost numit social-democratul Sándor Vincze.

Comisariatul Guvernamental  a funcționat pentru început în Sala Mare a Primăriei din Cluj, ulterior instalându-se de la mijlocul lunii decembrie 1918, în câteva camere de la etajul I al clădirii căminului studențesc de pe strada Petőfi (actualul cămin "Avram Iancu"). Activitatea sa fost finanțată din bugetul de stat.

Activitate
Cu persoana lui Apáthy, care era un om cu autoritate precum și o somitate în fața persoanelor oficiale civile sau militare cu care a intrat în contact, s-a identificat însuși istituția pe care a condus-o.

Comisariatul a avut rolul de a contracara funcționarea Consiliului Dirigent, dorindu-se a fi organul executiv al Comitetului Ardelenesc al Consiliului Național Maghiar, transformat după fuziunea de la 17 decembrie 1918 cu Consiliul Național Secuiesc, în Consiliul Național Maghiar și Secuiesc. Apáthy și-a păstrat funcția de președinte al Consiliului Național Maghiar din Cluj, iar cei mai mulți dintre funcționarii Comisariatului au continuat să dețină funcții de conducere în respectivul consiliu național. În calitatea sa de Comisar General, Apáthy n-a recunoscut autoritatea Consiliului Dirigent și a refuzat din punct de vedere oficial să aibă legături cu acesta. În același timp însă, nu s-a opus ca un grup de șefi de departamente să contacteze la mijlocul lunii ianuarie 1919 la Sibiu Consiliul Dirigent, pentru a încerca să discute în mod neoficial problema depunerii jurămîntului de credință de către funcționarii publici maghiari.

Reperul în ce privește finanțarea instituției a fost  "producției" de acte rezolvate, ceea ce a făcut ca birocrația să fie o caracteristică a Comisariatului Guvernamental. Acesta a avut mai degrabă funcția unui minister decît cea a unui guvern al Transilvaniei. Deși în intenție ar fi trebuit să i se subordoneze întreaga administrație publică transilvăneană, autoritatea sa a fost însă mai mult simbolică, iar teritoriul asupra căruia a avut în realitate putere a fost mic. Cu toate că a luat în calcul organizarea unei rezistențe armate față de intrarea trupelor române regulate în Cluj, Comisariatul Guvernamental a adoptat, silit fiind de forța împrejurărilor, o atitudine de resemnare și s-a limitat să-și asume rolul de protector al populației maghiare, precum și să coexiste pașnică alături de armata română din oraș. În scurt timp instituția cu tot cu funcționari a ajuns însă să reprezinte în fapt o formă fără fond, deoarece prin forța împrejurărilor numărul de persoane pe care a putut să le mai reprezinte s-a redus la câteva.

Instituția aflată în cauză și-a continuat activitatea timp de aproape o lună, succesiv intrării trupelor române în Cluj.

Desființare

Este posibil ca – cel puțin până la sfârșitul lunii decembrie 1918 când generalul Berthelot a venit la Cluj, din motive tactice care țineau inclusiv de menajarea sensibilităților populației maghiare – recunoașterea legitimității comisariatului și a lui Apáthy să fi fost în mod aparent susținută. Lichidarea instituțiilor statului ungar s-a făcut astfel în mod prudent, începând la o săptămână după ce la 31 decembrie 1918, generalul Berthelot și comandantul militar român al Clujului – generalul Constantin Neculcea – îl asiguraseră pe Comisarul General că activitatea sa nu va fi obstrucționată.

Măsuri preliminare
Astfel la solicitarea Consiliului Dirigent, care îi contesta lui Apáthy numirea ca și Comisar General, dat fiind că la momentul numirii sale guvernul Republicii Ungare publicase în Monitorul Oficial numai numirea lui, fără a-i specifica și atribuțiile, generalul Neculcea i-a comunicat lui Apáthy că va suspenda contactele cu acesta și cu Comisariatul, drept efect al ordinului generalului Traian Moșoiu. Motivația invocată a fost necesitatea ca Apáthy să dovedească în temeiul cărui drept și ca exponent al cărei autorități își exercita calitatea de Comisar General. Deși ca urmare a demersurilor făcute de Apáthy, prim ministrul ungar a reconfirmat atât numirea acestuia cât și atribuțiile cu care fusese investit, prin telegrame trimise comandanților Armatei de la Dunăre, Misiunii Aliate de la Budapesta și Comandamentului Trupelor din Transilvania, generalul Neculcea a susținut că nu a primit din partea generalului Moșoiu vreun alt ordin și și-a menținut poziția.

În această perioadă de început a noului an 1919, comandamentul militar român din Cluj s-a îngrijit și să creeze un cadru preventiv, menit să descurajeze acțiunile împotriva statului român și să exprime aparteneța Clujului la România Mare. În acest sens, a prevăzut diverse sancțiuni îndreptate împotriva celor care "ridică cuvîntul sau acționează împotriva Regatului unit al României". S-au luat de asemenea masuri de supraveghere a mai multor persoane oficiale maghiare, dintre care o mare parte au fost suspectate, fără însă a exista un temei solid, de activități subversive și de propagandă bolșevică. Un ordin emis de generalul Neculcea a prevăzut de asemenea, tragerea la răspundere a oficialităților maghiare ale Clujului pentru acțiunile trupelor regulate ungare care se aflau dincolo de noua linie de demarcație stabilită prin Baia Mare, Ciucea și Zam și care vizau pe locuitorii sau pe militarii români.

Deznodământ
La 9 ianuarie 1919, dimineața, o comisie militară românească a sechestrat clădirea Comisariatului Guvernamental pentru a percheziționa birourile acestuia, sub motivul stabilirii existenței unor manifeste sau a altor materiale de propagandă antiromânească sau de instigare la nesupunere civică, în clădire sau în locuința personală a Comisarului General. Nu au fost găsite astfel de materiale.

Câteva zile mai târziu însă, după Incidentul armat de la Țigani (Crișeni) din 14 ianuarie 1919 și ca urmare a invocării ordinului dat de el cu cîteva zile înainte, generalul Constantin Neculcea a hotărât să oblige 21 de oficiali ai orașului Cluj la plata unei despăgubiri de 900.000 coroane. Mai mult, în timp ce o delegație a Comisariatului Guvernamental se afla deplasată la Sibiu plecată fiind din 14 ianuarie 1919 pentru găsirea unui numitor comun cu Consiliul Dirigent, în ce privește depunerea jurământului de credință de către funcționarii de stat ungari, la 17 ianuarie Apáthy a fost arestat de către o comisie militară. Aceasta s-a făcut în baza ordinului 990 al comandamentului militar, referitor la arestarea unor înalte oficialități în cazul unor incidente care au ca subiect românii din teritoriile aflate sub autoritate ungară.

Odată revenită de la Sibiu, delegația Comisariatului Guvernamental a trebuit să ia act de lipsa Comisarului General, iar linia telefonică directă a instituției cu Budapesta a fost întreruptă. Comisariatul Guvernamental a mai funcționat cu greutate timp de o săptămână de la arestarea lui Apáthy, cu activitatea urmărită îndeaproape de către organele militare. Ulterior, toată arhiva precum și birourile instituției au fost sechestrate de către armata română și o serie de personalități maghiare din Cluj au fost punse sub observație ori sub arest la domiciliu. Astfel, și-a încetat existența respectivul centru de autoritate a Ungariei, care ar fi trebuit să mențină ideea statalității ungare pînă la Conferința de Pace.

Urmări
Evenimentele au determinat în rîndul populației maghiare din Cluj senzația de oprimare națională și au indus sentimente de nesupunere și rezistență în raport cu autoritățile militare românești. Cu prilejul venirii la Cluj a generalului francez Pathé, a avut astfel loc o demonstrație maghiară având ca scop eliberarea lui Apáthy, dar aceasta a fost dispersată de intervenția armatei prin folosirea cartușelor de manevră.

După depășirea momentelor critice de la sfîrșitul lui ianuarie 1919 și odată cu consolidarea autorității Consiliului Dirigent asupra Clujului, s-a trecut la etapa înlocuirii oficialităților maghiare comitatense și municipale, cu români devotați Consiliului. În fața nedumeririi funcționarilor maghiari care invocau prevederile Convenției militare de la Belgrad, Valentin Poruțiu a replicat în mod cinic:

Transformarea în realitate a ceea ce reprezentanții românilor votaseră la Alba Iulia și-a avut astfel reversul în ceea ce a exprimat Ion Negoițescu:

Actual în clădirea unde a fost sediul fostului comisariat, funcționează Facultatea de Drept din Cluj. În 1999 istoricul Peter Weber a afirmat că, demersurile sale din acea vreme întreprinse în România și în Ungaria nu au dus la aflarea locului în care se afla arhiva Comisariatului Guvernamental.

Referințe

Bibliografie
  Weber, Peter; De la Kolozsvár la Cluj. Ultimul episod al regimului ungar în "capitala" transilvană; Altera, Anul V Nr.11/1999

Legături externe

Vezi și
 Unirea Transilvaniei cu România
 Marea Unire

Ministere
1918 în România
1919 în România
1918 în Ungaria
1919 în Ungaria


The plum-headed parakeet (Psittacula cyanocephala) is a species of parakeet in the family Psittacidae. It is endemic to the Indian Subcontinent and was once thought to be conspecific with the blossom-headed parakeet (P. roseata) before being elevated to a full species. Plum-headed parakeets are found in flocks, the males having a pinkish purple head and the females, a grey head. They fly swiftly with twists and turns accompanied by their distinctive calls.

Taxonomy
In 1760 the French zoologist Mathurin Jacques Brisson included a description of the plum-headed parakeet in his Ornithologie based on a specimen collected in India. He used the French name Le perruche a teste bleu and the Latin name Psittaca cyanocephalos. Although Brisson coined Latin names, these do not conform to the binomial system and are not recognised by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. When in 1766 the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus updated his Systema Naturae for the twelfth edition he added 240 species that had been previously described by Brisson. One of these was the plum-headed parakeet. Linnaeus included a terse description, coined the binomial name Psittacus cyanocephalus and cited Brisson's work. The specific name cyanocephalus/cyanocephala combines the Ancient Greek words  "dark-blue" and  "-headed". This species is now placed in the genus Psittacula which was introduced by the French naturalist Georges Cuvier in 1800.

Description
The plum-headed parakeet is a mainly green parrot, 33 cm long with a tail up to 22 cm. The male has a red head which shades to purple-blue on the back of the crown, nape and cheeks, while the female has a blueish-gray head. There is a narrow black neck collar with verdigris below on the nape and a black chin stripe that extends from the lower mandible. There is a red shoulder patch and the rump and tail are bluish-green, the latter tipped white. The upper mandible is orangish-yellow, and the lower mandible is dark. The female has a dull bluish grey head and lacks the black and verdigris collar, which is replaced by yellow. The upper-mandible is corn-yellow and there is no black chin stripe or red shoulder patch. Immature birds have a green head and both mandibles are yellowish. The dark head is acquired after a year. The delicate bluish red appearance resembling the bloom of a peach is produced by a combination of blue from the optical effects produced by the rami of the feather and a red pigment in the barbules.

Some authors have considered the species to have two subspecies, the nominate from peninsular India (type locality restricted to Gingee) and the population from the foothills of the Himalayas as bengalensis on the basis of the colour of the head in the male which is more red and less blue. Newer works consider the species to be monotypic.

The different head colour and the white tip to the tail distinguish this species from the similar blossom-headed parakeet (P. roseata). The shoulder patch is maroon coloured and the shorter tail is tipped yellow in P. roseata.

A supposed species of parakeet, the so-called intermediate parakeet Psittacula intermedia is thought to be a hybrid of this and the slaty-headed parakeet (P. himalayana).

Habitat and distribution
The plum-headed parakeet is a bird of forest and open woodland, even in city gardens. They are found from the foothills of the Himalayas south to Sri Lanka. They are not found in the dry regions of western India. They are sometimes kept as pets and escaped birds have been noted in New York, Florida and in some places in the Middle East.

Behaviour and ecology
The plum-headed parakeet is a gregarious and noisy species with a range of raucous calls. The usual flight and contact call is  repeated now and then. The flight is swift, and the bird often twists and turns rapidly. It makes local movements, driven mainly by the availability of the fruit and blossoms which make up its diet. They feed on grains, fruits, the fleshy petals of flowers (Salmalia, Butea) and sometimes raid agricultural fields and orchards. The breeding season in India is mainly from December to April, and July to August in Sri Lanka. Courtship includes bill rubbing and courtship feeding. It nests in holes, chiselled out by the pair, in tree trunks, and lays 4–6 white eggs. The female appears to be solely responsible for incubation and feeding. They roost communally. In captivity, it can learn to mimic beeps and short whistling tunes, and can talk very well.

Neoaulobia psittaculae, a quill mite, has been described from the species. A species of Haemoproteus, H. handai, has been described from blood samples from the plum-headed parakeet.

History
Ctesias of Cnidus, a 5th-century BC Greek physician to the emperor Artaxerxes II, who ruled the Achaemenid Empire, accompanied Artaxerxes on his 401 BC campaign against his brother Cyrus the Younger. He was author of the lost Indica, a description of India which he wrote based on his experience in Persia and information he gathered from Persian accounts. Fragments of the Indica were preserved by Photius of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca in the 9th century AD; one of these has been identified as describing Psittacula cyanocephala and its abilities as a talking bird. It is likely Ctesias saw the bird himself, with an Indian handler; though his description could also apply to Psittacula roseata, that species is native to areas far further east and is much less likely candidate in Greater Iran. In his summary of Ctesias, Photius wrote:

References

External links
 Stamps of Sri Lankan birds

plum-headed parakeet
Birds of South Asia
Least concern biota of Asia
plum-headed parakeet
plum-headed parakeet

Plum-headed parakeet


00, බින්දු දෙක යන්නෙන් පහත දෑ අදහස් විය හැක:
 00, මිනිත්තුවක කාලයෙහි පළමු ඒකකය, 12-පැය ඔරලෝසුව හා 24-පැය ඔරලෝසුව
 00, පොදු වැසිකිලියක් දැක්වීම පිණිස භාවික වන කෙටි හැගවීම (විශේෂයෙන්ම ජර්මනියෙහි සහ නැගෙනහිර යුරෝපයෙහි)

වක්‍රෝත්තිහරණ පිටු

00